> * Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote: >> The first problem is plaform performance, which would be a matter of >> expanding the buildfarm to include a small set of performance tests ... >> probably ones based on previously known problems, plus some other simple >> common operations. The goal here would be to test on as many different >> machines as possible, rather than getting full coverage of peformance.
I think it's a seriously *bad* idea to expect existing buildfarm members to produce useful performance data. Very few of them are running on dedicated machines, and some are deliberately configured with performance-trashing options. (I think just about all of 'em use --enable-cassert, but there are some with worse things...) We can probably share a great deal of the existing buildfarm code and infrastructure, but the actual members of the p-farm will need to be a separate collection of machines running different builds. Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > imv, we should be trying to include the above in the regression tests, > presuming that they can be done in that structure and that they can be > done 'quickly'. There's no such thing as a useful performance test that runs quickly enough to be sane to incorporate in our standard regression tests. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers